Source: Friedrich Hayek, The Fatal Conceit (1988), Appendix B: The Complexity of Problems of Human Interaction

Hayek said that Joachim Reig pointed this out in his Introduction to the Spanish translation of E. von Bohm-Bawerk's essay on Marx's theory of exploitation (1976)

The previous story I heard about it is that Karl Marx died working in his Capital.

Did Karl Marx abandon further work on capital? If so, is that the reason?

I know this may not be the best place to ask, so please mods, remove if necessary.

I've been curious about the Middle Ages and the crusades overall and am looking for interesting books on the subjects, though not so dry to the point that I'd only be reading it because of a college paper. Any recommendations would be helpful!

I understand the basics of the agricultural revolution and whatnot, and what generally lead to the rise of civilizations. What I don't understand is why the same thing happened at roughly the same time (relative to the time scale of human evolution) in areas that shouldn't have had any interaction with one another (the Middle East, China, Europe, Egypt, etc) after hundreds of thousands of years of this not happening... So I get that learning the basics of farming and whatnot lead to civilizations arising. I don't understand why that happened simultaneously in different areas that were separated by thousands of miles and geographical features that would have been virtually impassable at the time... Did some people just rapidly spread the knowledge, so that people in Egypt and people in China were essentially taught from the same original source, or did they both just come up with it completely separate of one another?

I’m working on a tabletop wargame specifically covering the pacific theatre and I can’t seem to find any info on whether they were issued to the US troops on the squad, platoon, or company level. I’m assuming each platoon would have one, but I was curious if each individual squad would have one.

Ok, so... why am I asking this. First of all, I know close to nothing about modern day politics, both in global context as well as in my own nation, and when I read and research different historical topics I usually do it only because of interest, and I rarely try to connect different historical events to the current political state in the world/certain region.

However, whenever I try to discuss some historical topics with my friends/relatives, they always tend to make analogies with the modern day political conflicts and tell about how certain historical facts are fake, and were invented only because of political reasons, etc. When I try to tell them that I'm not really comfortable with discussing politics, as I know nothing about them, and what I actually would like to talk about are events from the past in particular, and not how they are related to some modern political conflicts, they tell me that history is, in fact, useless by itself and that it is purposeless to discuss the past events without mentioning their effect on the modern day politics.

So am I wrong, and I actually first need to educate myself more about politics in general, as well as develop my own point of view when it comes to certain political conflicts in my nation, and only then I will be able to discuss history? Or are they wrong, and it is actually possible to discuss events from the past without touching the topic of modern day political conflicts?

It’s just a subject I would like to know more about, since searching these terms doesn’t yield relevant results and the only sources I could find are in French.

Was it just a more organized group of bandits, composed of deserted soldiers? How did they function? Did they fight in actual battles or did they raid and rob? What was the civilian attitude towards them - did they fear or support them? And what about authorities - did they persecute them at all times or were there times when they relied on their support?

Im very interested in reading about the it but not sure what books I should look into I'm interested in books with pictures and illustrations in general and of course writings kind like your usual history book from school Thanks for your input

It's well known that when he took over the Army of the Potomac, Grant wanted to impress on his subordinates that they should be less concerned with what Bobby Lee was going to do to them than with what they were going to do to him. It's also well known that he showed respect toward Lee's person at Appomattox.

But did he ever publicly or privately assess Lee's skill as a soldier? What did he think of it?

I have always loved norse mythology, but accessibility to the stories undiluted by modern interpretation, or secondhand have been far and few.

So less one question but a couple:

• What would be a handful of stories to get a better understanding of the norse world? (i.e.- Ymir's brains being the clouds)
• Are there any books that I could read to further my knowledge?
• Any information on understanding the runes and writings? (I.e.- ironically a word I've looked into is "understanding" and I've come across "skilja", "sjá", "vita", "vizku-munr" and "vit" but I'm curious how this would be written and which is the correct one)

I am watching a documentary in several installments called Pride and the episode for the 1960s shows LGBTQ+ individuals being regularly arrested, severely beaten and mistreated by the police. Even the public joined in the beatings at some instances. The names of the "offenders" were published in print media and these individuals' careers and lives were often ruined. Anti-gay therapy and shock treatments were also very common. The documentary points out to powerful, very conservative and homophobic forces being behind these abuses. What is the context of these developments? Do we know how many people were affected in these 'purges'? Was this unique to the US? Also, was it perhaps driven as a response to the opening of the culture in the 1960s and the increased civil rights activism?

my guess is about 85%

Googled a bit about sui dynasty's population at this time and it says around 35 millions, it seems really incredible for me that the sui dynasty drafted more than 10% of its population into the direct war effort, and in contrast, numbers in European battles are really low compared to it cos it's few hundred here few hundred there and if some one has a gigantic army it's 30k...

Hi everyone, just caught myself wondering whether carthage would have been in a good enough position ti fend itself better if Hannibal was more conservative. In other words, was the crossing something akin to Napoleon's invasion of Russia or was it a "last resort" strategy in a otherwise hopeless scenario?

Hey, so Islam preaches that the Christian Bible use to be accurate before it was corrupted, so basically it used to be about One God who isn't part of the trinity and wasn't a human. Are there any sources that suggest that the Bible use to preach a different God.

People sometimes claim that the stone age didn't end for lack of stone, and that the oil age will not end for lack of oil. This is often in the context of discussing renewable energy or other technological developments. This has me wondering about the end of other "ages" of human technology. My hazy, non-historian's understanding of the end of the bronze age and beginning of the iron age is something like the following. In the eastern Mediterranean / Mesopotamia region, a large international trade network was necessary to bring together tin and copper from widely separated areas in order to make bronze. In the late bronze-age collapse, these networks broke down, and making new bronze became prohibitively difficult. This somehow led to the development and adoption of iron technology, which requires only one type of ore and thus is not dependent on long-range trade networks. Thus, it might be said that the bronze age did end for lack of bronze.

My questions are, first, is this a somewhat accurate characterization of the historical facts as we understand them? And second, how was the transition from bronze age to iron age different or similar in, China, sub-Saharan Africa, or other regions? Did the development and widespread adoption of iron sometime take place in the context of decreasing supply of bronze, and sometimes not, or did it follow a more consistent pattern across regions and times?

So my general understanding as to why iron over-took bronze as the main material for weapons and armor has not only to do with its superior qualities but as well as its abundance and accessibility to ore. Given that historians generally date the start of the Iron age to around the 12th century BC why in the 5th 4th and even 3rd centuries BC we still see bronze being used regularly in chest plates, shields (most notably the aspis) and helmets. With iron, armor would be cheaper, lighter, and stronger, so why do we still see this proliferation of bronze? My only guesses are that it was maybe a sign of wealth to be able to use bronze? Or was bronze cheaper given that it's easier to mold and cast than iron despite the difficulty in acquiring tin?

This might be a really dumb question but I’ve been wondering how women in the 20’s managed to only have one child?

Wasn’t reliable contraception basically impossible to get at that time?

For example: Zelda Fitzgerald, and Agatha Christie only had one each and I’m just wondering how they prevented subsequent pregnancies because it seems like it would be hard.